Learning the idiomatic differences among modern half-, three-quarter- and one-ton pickups is a rite of passage in becoming a truck enthusiast. We understand truck lingo, and we use its terms fluidly when chatting with other enthusiasts at truck shows or at the 4x4 shop.

Judging by questions in various web forums and talking with a number of clueless sales reps at dealerships, we’ve noticed that many people involved with trucks don’t get it. They either haven’t heard of certain terms or fail to grasp that these terms are no longer literal references to payload capacity. In today’s truck enthusiast vernacular, half-, three-quarter- and one-ton designations help differentiate consumer pickups by a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating, or GVWR. They help distinguish the “class” of truck we drive instead of trying to reveal a specific capability.

But where did these terms originate, and how did they evolve into a different meaning within today’s truck lingo? We’re not completely sure, but with a little research we’ve developed a theory — albeit one with a couple holes that our readers might be able to help close.

Defining Terms: GVWRGVWR represents manufacturer’s maximum allowable weight for a fully loaded vehicle. This includes the vehicle weight, maximum cargo and passengers. The manufacturer establishes the GVWR based on considerable load-carrying criteria, including, but not limited to, axle capacity, wheel and tire combination, frame strength, and suspension components. A truck’s GVWR is usually listed on a sticker in the doorjamb and in the owner’s manual. Remember, GVWR changes considerably across a vehicle’s lineup. A 4x2 regular cab/standard bed with a V-6 will have a different GVWR from a V-8-powered 4x4 crew cab/long bed.

Let’s define payload, since that term is part of this discussion. A vehicle’s payload capacity is calculated by subtracting the weight of the vehicle from the GVWR. For example, let’s say your truck’s GVWR is 6,800 pounds, and on the scale it weighs 5,375 pounds with a full tank of gas but no passengers or cargo. The maximum payload that particular truck can safely support is 1,425 pounds. One of the biggest misconceptions by first-time truck owners is that payload refers only to the cargo in the bed; however, the vehicle’s calculated payload includes all occupants, items stored in the cab and the tongue weight of the trailer when towing.

A History of PayloadPayload has been a measure of load-carrying capability for centuries. To meet commercial transport demands, engineers rated the payload capacity of ships, railcars and probably stagecoaches long before the first automobile — usually in metric tonnes (1,000 kilograms) or our current standard of a short ton equaling 2,000 pounds.

In fact, trucks were given payload ratings before they were even invented. According to the book “Trucks: An Illustrated History 1896-1920,” a French engineer patented a design for a “4-ton truck” in 1828. When trucks started appearing near the turn of the century, most were described with a payload rating — and with good reason. They were directly competing against horse-drawn carts for moving goods. Advertising that these new vehicles could carry one or two tons of cargo with an engine rated at 20 or 30 horsepower was a distinct advantage.

In 1911, Captain Alexander E. Williams wrote in the Infantry Journal that the military should put a greater emphasis on motor-powered vehicles. That same year the captain started conducting tests with one- and three-ton trucks, and he was charged with establishing specifications for a standard military truck. As early as 1913, the Society of Automotive Engineers and the Quartermaster Corps formulated detailed specifications for a standardized Army truck — but they were tabled briefly as the Calvary scoffed at the motor vehicle’s use in combat.

Smaller Models AppearThe Army did use trucks to move supplies when fighting Pancho Villa, then it used one-ton and larger trucks in World War I. Ford, which discouraged modifying its Model T into a truck, finally saw the potential for truck sales in 1917 and released the one-ton Model TT chassis. Other automakers ramped up truck production, mostly one-ton and larger trucks, for the war effort.

When the fighting stopped, automakers recognized the value of an expanded truck line for commercial and agriculture purposes, and they offered different payload options, including half-ton and three-quarter-ton versions. Slowly, the automakers differentiated these payload classes with separate model designations. For example, Dodge had the half-ton Series RC truck and the three-quarter-ton Series RD in 1938.

The military also stepped up its efforts to standardize trucks and established a wider range of payload classes, including quarter-ton (example: Jeep), half-ton (command cars) and three-quarter-ton (ambulances) in addition to the one-ton and larger trucks used for artillery, munitions and personnel transport in World War II.

This classification mentality continued after WWII. In 1948, Ford designated its half-ton model as the F-1 followed by the F-2 (three-quarter-ton) and F-3 (one-ton). Ford, of course, expanded those badges to F-100/150, F-250 and F-350 by the late 1950s. Dodge used a variety of designations until the familiar D/W100, 200 and 300 models started in the late ‘50s. Chevy also used a quirky approach to model designations with its Series 1100 through 3800 lineup in the ‘50s, but in the ’60s the automaker established the more familiar C/K 10, 20 and 30 designations.

Looking For HelpHere’s where the trail gets a little fuzzy, and we could use a little more insight from PickupTrucks.com readers who are commercial and military historians. The military likely stood by its payload designations, even as the growing auto industry evolved. If it needed a three-quarter-ton payload truck for flight line security, it got a truck with a payload capacity of at least 1,500 pounds. Whether or not there was an F-150 or C20 badge probably didn’t matter.

However, as the consumer truck market grew, automakers added more payload capacity to their trucks wearing the familiar badging that originated with the traditional half-, three-quarter- and one-ton designations. I suspect the automakers then initiated a combative one-upmanship marketing game by increasing the payload numbers for those models. Something like: “My half-ton can outhaul your half-ton!” very similar to what we see today.

So who kept the half-, three-quarter- and one-ton vernacular going, even though the automakers now had distinct model designations that no longer correlated directly to specific payload capacities? Our guess is that most consumer pickup buyers in the ‘60s and ‘70s were war veterans. When their sons took over the family business or went shopping for a ranch truck, they also talked in terms of half- or three-quarter-ton trucks, even though the payload capacities were much higher. It was most likely a matter of military language morphing into a popular colloquialism. And truck enthusiasts today continue to use those terms, much the same way they call any type of limited-slip differential a “posi” regardless if it truly is a Positraction unit.

Today’s TerminologyIn today’s consumer market, the designations for half-, three-quarter- and one-ton trucks are a little different. Ford still goes with F-150, F-250 and F-350, respectively, while Ram, Chevy and GMC follow 1500, 2500 and 3500 terminology. Some modern half-ton trucks have payload ratings above 2,000 pounds. And a good one-ton pickup can carry more than 5,500 pounds. Payload simply isn’t the determining factor for the traditional designations. Now they’re used to identify a general GVWR range.

A half-ton or 150/1500 model typically falls under an 8,500-pound GVWR. A three-quarter-ton or 250/2500 model ranges between 8,500 and 9,990 pounds. A one-ton or 350/3500 truck is likely to be 9,900 pounds or more. Again, these are not official standards set down by a regulatory or engineering body. They’re just a reflection of today’s truck market. Ten years from now, the numbers may change and probably confuse even more new-truck buyers.

Adding to the puzzle, of course, is the government. Hardcore truck enthusiasts and commercial operators know about federal truck classifications based on GVWR. They are:

Class GVWR (pounds)

Class 1 0-6,000

Class 2 6,001-10,000

Class 3 10,001-14,000

Class 4 14,001-16,000

Class 5 16,001-19,500

Class 6 19,501-26,000

Class 7 26,001-33,000

Class 8 33,000 and higher

Categorizing these class designations can also be confusing when differentiating between “light duty” and “heavy duty.” For consumer vehicles, light duty is a half-ton truck, which can be Class 1 or 2, while heavy duty is a three-quarter- or one-ton truck, which is Class 2 or 3. In the commercial truck world, light duty is Class 1-3; medium duty is Class 4-6 and heavy duty is Class 7-8. It all depends on the context of the conversation.

So, that’s our theory on how the various model designations evolved, based on researching truck books at home and military reference books. However, we’re sure we may have missed something and would love to hear back from any PUTC readers with their contributions to this topic.

Sources for this article include:

An Illustrated History of Military Vehicles by Ian V. Hogg and John Weeks

Military Vehicles from World War I to the Present by Hans Halberstadt

Standard Catalog of US Military Vehicles, 1940-1965

Trucks: An Illustrated History 1896-1920 by G.N. Georgano and Carlo Demand

Standard Catalog of American Light Duty Trucks by James T. Lenzke and John Gunnell

I remember learning to drive with a 52 Dodge grain truck and that was in the late 70's.

So the good old days, do we want them back? The only thing I want back from those days is cheap gas.

Nice Story Mike.....

Posted by: Peter | Mar 31, 2012 12:50:42 AM

I wonder if GM (and maybe Ford and Dodge?) also hastened the confusion with the "heavy" half-tons to get around having to use catalytic convertors?

Posted by: mecheman | Mar 31, 2012 5:24:25 AM

I just converted my close to 3/4 ton Toyota pickup to over 1 ton payload...

Factory payload numbers were over 1,300 lbs. and now I am over 2,100 lbs.

How? I modded my suspension with 200 lbs. coils up front and 700 lbs. leafs (from factory 3-pack to 9-pack) in the rear with improved shocks and stronger 5/8 u-bolts flipped for improved ground clearance along with improved gas shocks up front under the coils and desert racing spec. upper control arms.

My pickup can handle additional payload and I have ran many load tests on/off-road and stress tests to verify...

A bit of history, I used to own an 85 Toyota 2wd standard pickup YET Toyota sold a 1 ton version of the same identical pickup. Everything frame, engine, axles were the same thing, all they did was mod the suspension to handle additional payload up to 2,000 lbs. and labeled it a 1 ton...

Toyota those days also made a dually version of the same pickup to haul a camper over the bed/cab, thus improved payload even more from the same engine/frame combination...

You can increase your payload numbers, off-roaders like myself have been doing it for years, that is properly. Sorry kids, lift kits do not increase payload!

Posted by: oxi | Mar 31, 2012 5:46:10 AM

I always thought (and still do) classifying trucks as 1/2 ton, 1 ton, etc is pointless. Since there's no official standard and since the specs keep changing, what's the point? Why not just refer to payload or GVWR? To use these "x-ton" categories amounts to nothing more than a nickname and apparently a rather subjective one.

If you go by the specs, my 2g tundra is a .75 ton but most would call it a .5 ton.

@oxi
did you have to upgrade the brakes?
how about transmission fluids differential fluids? better cooling?

i own a 1992 isuzu pup 2wd 2.3l i think its a halfton after reading what you did to your toyota i might just do something like that to my trucklet.

i bought this truck from a kid still in high school "never change the fluids and overfilled it with motor oil.

i know i have to buy a body lift kit so the front tires dont rub the fender everytime i turn to sharp. funny thing is they are only 30 inch tires. i think some of these came out the assembly line with 31 inch tires.

Posted by: Big Roy | Mar 31, 2012 7:58:59 AM

oxi said....
Factory payload numbers were over 1,300 lbs. and now I am over 2,100 lbs.

How? I modded my suspension with 200 lbs. coils up front and 700 lbs. leafs (from factory 3-pack to 9-pack) in the rear with improved shocks and stronger 5/8 u-bolts flipped for improved ground clearance along with improved gas shocks up front under the coils and desert racing spec. upper control arms

I am sure you thought about the rest of the truck BUT just so a newbe to trucks doesn't think he can replicate what you did on his Ranger or any lighter truck; please clue us in on the changes if any to tires or wheels, differential, brakes,frame reinforcement, etc??
There are many components that factor in to SAFELY increasing payload. NOT just heavier springs.

Posted by: Bob from Canada | Mar 31, 2012 9:23:18 AM

OXI, just throw a pair of airbags out of a class 8 truck so you can have a GVW of 33,000 lbs on your beloved 'toy.

Posted by: CHAD | Mar 31, 2012 9:58:35 AM

On a much more serious note, load helpers on the market are to help your truck ride/handle better when running at or close to GVW and are not for increasing your GVW. There are WAY to many other factors that go into GVW numbers then what the springs will hold up off the ground.

Posted by: CHAD | Mar 31, 2012 10:04:01 AM

@oxi - the story was about the history of pickup classes not how you modified your truck to break the law. Did you get an automotive engineer to assess and certify the increaded capacity of your truck? If not, regardless what you do to it, you can't excede the door tag. If you don't drive on any public roads you can do what ever you want, but if you do that, you'd need another truck to tow it to your offroad locations. That would mean having to buy a full sized truck. ROTFLMFAO.

Back on topic - it is true that most pickups excede the "old school" class ratings. It is an odd system. The military angle of the story seems to make sense. Even if you look at the commercial classification system, pickup trucks do not fall cleanly into any one class.

Posted by: Lou | Mar 31, 2012 1:39:04 PM

Actually the government has stipulated two Class II categories.

Class IIa is for trucks 6,001—8,500 pounds, and Class IIb is for trucks 8,501—10,000 pounds.

So Class IIa is for 150/1500 models, and IIb is for 250/2500 models.

Posted by: rsholland | Mar 31, 2012 1:58:31 PM

I just converted my close to 3/4 ton Toyota pickup to over 1 ton payload...Factory payload numbers were over 1,300 lbs. and now I am over 2,100 lbs.

-----

Ox,
That's not over 1 ton, it's not even 1 ton.

Posted by: Dave | Mar 31, 2012 2:19:03 PM

My bad. I see you were talking payload, not classes. Yes, it is true oxi's truck has over 1 ton payload. Go oxi go!

Posted by: Dave | Mar 31, 2012 2:21:41 PM

@Dave,

You're darn right it is over 1 ton. oxi has over 20 years experience in off-roading and buildpickups. He can tell you how to build them them bomb proof!

In the off-road world oxi has learned how to build them properly and this helps both on and off-road...

if you have any questions hit him up on Tacomaworld...

Way to go oxi!

Posted by: george | Mar 31, 2012 3:02:28 PM

@Dave,

You're darn right it is over 1 ton. oxi has over 20 years experience in off-roading and building pickups. He can tell you how to build them bomb proof!

In the off-road world oxi has learned how to build them properly and this helps both on and off-road...

if you have any questions hit him up on Tacomaworld...

Way to go oxi!

Posted by: george | Mar 31, 2012 3:03:40 PM

Good job oxi!

Posted by: Jay | Mar 31, 2012 3:05:50 PM

oxi for president...

Posted by: Jason | Mar 31, 2012 3:34:18 PM

@Dave,

oxi's springs are 700 lbs. rated so his payload has increased...

oxi has stated that he has put some heavy weight on it and the clearance in the wheel wells never moved...

There are too many hungry injury lawyers in this world for me to drive a truck past factory weight limits.

Payload is a legal term.

Posted by: Dan | Mar 31, 2012 4:45:01 PM

@jay please tell me that's not oxi's truck. Because that looks like a truck a poser would drive. Lmfao

Posted by: Truckerman | Mar 31, 2012 6:09:30 PM

@Oxi

Quit making aliases to make it look like people acutally agree with you and/or consider you some kind of offroad god, Its seriously one the dumbest most desperate things I've ever seen anyone do...Even on the internet.

Secondly. If you think 2100lbs payload is 1-ton territory then you are sorley mistaken. 2100lbs is not even REMOTLY close to what a 1-ton's payload. Let me give you some perspective...

Ford F-350 Max Payload = 7110lbs

Chevrolet/GMC 3500 Max Payload = 7215lbs

Yeah...So 2100lbs isn't even remotley close to being in the same payload class as any 1-ton truck. 2100lbs isn't even 3/4 ton territory...Your avarage 1/2 ton has a Payload capacity that spans between 1300lbs and 3000lbs So if anything your truck is only ranked as a HALF TON in Payload.

But like Lou said, I highly doubt you have actually had a ceritfied technician come inspect every component of your truck and give you their stamp of approval that its road worthy with almost double its factory rated cargo capacity in the bed.

Hey I have and Idea Oxi...GET A BIGGER TRUCK. Your always bashing everyone else for driving a bigger truck yet your the one who really needs one!

Posted by: Nate.M | Mar 31, 2012 9:17:28 PM

@Truckerman - yes it is. Right down to the "Oxi" vanity plate.
@Jay - care to post the rest of Oxi's pictures. The rest of us would like to know what a "real" 1 ton off road truck looks like.
Might as well finish ruining this blog with off topic ego material.

I thought that one needed the appropriate tire size to weight ratio?
Translation - the heavier the truck the larger the tires needed.
256's on a one ton capable offroad truck?

Posted by: Lou | Apr 1, 2012 1:40:14 AM

If the current GM truck does'nt have the numbers on the door, it's a 1500. They currently use only the 2500 and 3500 badging.

Posted by: Steve Harris | Apr 1, 2012 10:56:08 AM

I had an 85 Mitsubishi Might Max converted from a half to a one ton with new springs (added more) and heavy duty shocks. It stood up like a 4 wheel drive and could literally haul anything. I had it for over fourteen years and 200k mile and it was one of the best trucks I ever owned.

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 1, 2012 11:47:16 AM

@Lou,

Your IGNORANT!

You have no idea about modification MORON!

When you change your tire size, it is no longer OEM, you change the floor mats, mirors, place a seat cover over the factory, change rims, exhaust, intake, add a bed cover, a hitch, a steering wheel cover, etc... etc... you have modded past what the OEM has installed...

Your legal whining is gay to say the least because ANY modded off-roader from Jeeps to full-size with bigger tires are illegal...

I recall when my rear plates fell off when I had my 86 Toyota pickup, state trooper fully inspected my pickup and found NOTHING illegal or wrong YET I had 35 inch tires, bodi-lift, suspension mods galore, a HELPER spring that increased payload as part of the lift of the rear, YET he never bothered, just wanted the plates put back on...

You live in a FANTASY world, in the REAL world, actual off-roaders will laugh at you like I am!

Posted by: oxi | Apr 1, 2012 12:22:29 PM

Mike Magda, thank you. Nice article.

For those who upconverted their half-ton, I wish to add that there is more to the rating than heavier duty shocks, springs and axles. The most important aspect of a truck's rating is its frame.

I know a guy who upconverted his halfton Silverado with a 1-ton dually axle and bed (from a wrecking yard Dually), then proceeded to tow a 30+ ft Airstream inherited from his dad.

I have have never sat in a more squirrelly truck during my entire life. The truck handled like a bowl of Jello. Seriously!

Posted by: DeBinder Dundett | Apr 1, 2012 12:36:37 PM

Hey Lou,

Did you have an engineer certify your steering wheel wrap, your seat covers, the cap over the bed, grill guard, new floor mats, just saying...

Did an engineer certify what you place in the bed and the position and manner?

Did an engineer certify the trailer you just hooked up, was it properly hooked up?

Did you add a K&N air filter? Did you improve your exhaust, add a chip? Did the OEM engineer approve that one too?

You must be realy boring to never have modded your pickup ever! I see modded pickups all of the time, get over your lame argument because it makes no sense!

Re-visit the mid 1980's Toyota pickups, same frame, axles, etc... yet they made a 1 ton version just by a spring mod and even a dually on the same chassis...

Do us all a favor and stay OEM, nothing wrong with that but leave us alone, that is the ones that know how to make an OEM pickup stronger, safer and last longer in any type of terrain, leave us alone, we know what we are doing!

Posted by: oxi | Apr 1, 2012 1:43:11 PM

@Oxi - there are parameters that base the kinds of modifications that can be done to a truck and still keep it legal.

Here is a topic that fellow Tacoma owners are pointing out the problems with oxi's spring job. It doesn't look right and I think they may be onto something. I will let the forum do the talking but I found this one comment funny in particular!

"The springs you have are either not designed for the weight you have on the truck or are completely worn out. Ray Charles could see that.

Somewhere around 1978 Ford and GM got around the unleaded gas movement in their 1/2 ton trucks by going to a heavy half. With Ford it was the new F150, Chevy called theirs the Big Ten, while GMC had the Heavy Half, this allowed them to get around the GVWR of I think 6,000 LBS and under were required to run on unleaded gas.
I purchased a new 1979 F150 that I think was 6050 LB GVWR.
It's been a long time so I am sure someone can give more accurate numbers.

Posted by: hdmax | Apr 1, 2012 7:34:43 PM

@Tom,

My springs are pefectly fine and were designed as such by Deaver that way...

I have load tested them and they ride very comfortable with 1,000 lbs. in the bed...

You sir are ignorant!

The engineer at Deaver who built them has vast experience in building springs, you sir do NOT!

Posted by: oxi | Apr 1, 2012 9:17:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxi
"Jeff at Deaver has seen my pics of the springs in the rear, he is the one who engineered and built them and with the heavier payload rating and height I wanted, that is how the springs sat and that it is perfectly fine and normal...

I have a 1 ton rating with these springs, much different pack than yours and yes my ride is quite impressive for a lifted pickup...

My front went up 3 inches with the OME with 886 coils and Camburg UCA's, I have a very different setup than yours and she rides darn good... "

Response by Irgrnr:
Springs need arch. Yours are flat and with you running no bump stops with the smallest amount of flex you will go into negative arch which kills springs.

And another your shocks are not suposed to act as bumpstops. That is a good way to destroy them. But I'm sure that you think that is fine also.

I would suggest that you do some research on suspension setups, and stop thinking this Deaver guy is a genius because he's obviously just tying to make a dime and feeding you bullshit by saying your setup is perfectly normal.

Reply by Teryx:
Oxi,
Not trying to badger you, just trying to help. You can do what you want with this. The numbers you have quoted just don't seem right. If the Deavers are built for +700 pounds then why is the back end so sacked with the springs in the factory mounts? I don't see the weight on your truck unless you've got 50,000 rounds of ammunition in the rear. The average stock distance from the center of the hub to the fender in front is 20", and 22" in back. Your truck does not look 23 in front, is it? The rear with the 700+springs doesn't even look to be at stock height when using the factory mountings. It just doesn't add up.

2 other points. Leaf spring geometry is more complicated than it might seem. For one thing, the front eye of the spring should be several inches below the rear eye, like around 5-6 inches IIRC. That geometry gives the best roll resistance and stablility to the spring. That is why Toyota uses a reverse shackle. Second, progressive leaf packs are not meant to live and operate in reverse arch. Up until the spring goes flat, the arch is smooth from eye to eye. After it passes flat it begins to get a wave in it with a hump developing over the axle. You can actually see a little of that shape developing in the pictures you posted. All of the progressive nature that we all strive to get goes out the window when that happens. The stress on the springs becomes very high and you could be headed for a broken spring. There are springs designed to operate in negative arch, but they are never built as progressive stacks. Generally they are mono springs or maybe 2 full length leaves. The older domestic trucks used this design in the front for many years.

If this is a Deaver designed and blessed suspension, It would sure be great if one of their engineers would join the discussion and explain how this is supposed to work. Maybe we are fucked in the head for questioning this, and if so, I'd like to learn a few things Again I'm not trying to give you ship, but I have been around suspension work a few times.

Just stay in your perfect little world, let the people that use their trucks do as they please because you obviously do not know anything or much at all about pickups...

Posted by: oxi | Apr 1, 2012 9:20:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxi
Jeff at Deaver has seen my pics of the springs in the rear, he is the one who engineered and built them and with the heavier payload rating and height I wanted, that is how the springs sat and that it is perfectly fine and normal...

I have a 1 ton rating with these springs, much different pack than yours and yes my ride is quite impressive for a lifted pickup...

My front went up 3 inches with the OME with 886 coils and Camburg UCA's, I have a very different setup than yours and she rides darn good...

------
Hello oxi,

Springs need arch. Yours are flat and with you running no bump stops with the smallest amount of flex you will go into negative arch which kills springs.

And another your shocks are not suposed to act as bumpstops. That is a good way to destroy them. But I'm sure that you think that is fine also.

I would suggest that you do some research on suspension setups, and stop thinking this Deaver guy is a genius because he's obviously just tying to make a dime and feeding you bullshit by saying your setup is perfectly normal.

Posted by: Irgrnr | Apr 1, 2012 9:23:17 PM

@Irgrnr,

Sorry but Jeff at Deaver is the one who designed them and saw the pics and said they are peffectly fine...

Unless your an engineer on leaf spring design and have a vast racing background as Jeff, I will let Jeff be the expert and nobody else on this site...

My local off-road shop has also seen my springs and says the same thing, they were designed to carry additional payload with little additional lift of the rear and he builds Pro-4 off-road racing trucks...

I wanted an increase in payload without the masive lift that comes from 9+ leaf packs and Jeff at Deaver designed these springs as such for me. So unless you run your own leaf spring business and supply springs to some of the world's top off-road racing teams, Deaver are the experts while the rest of you on this site are just voicing your opinions...

My pickup has been operating fine with my springs even under load/stress testing of 1,000 lbs. in the bed at 70 mph on highway and even some mild off-roading, what say you to that?

Posted by: oxi | Apr 1, 2012 9:28:18 PM

Oxi,
Not trying to badger you, just trying to help. You can do what you want with this. The numbers you have quoted just don't seem right. If the Deavers are built for +700 pounds then why is the back end so sacked with the springs in the factory mounts? I don't see the weight on your truck unless you've got 50,000 rounds of ammunition in the rear. The average stock distance from the center of the hub to the fender in front is 20", and 22" in back. Your truck does not look 23 in front, is it? The rear with the 700+springs doesn't even look to be at stock height when using the factory mountings. It just doesn't add up.

2 other points. Leaf spring geometry is more complicated than it might seem. For one thing, the front eye of the spring should be several inches below the rear eye, like around 5-6 inches IIRC. That geometry gives the best roll resistance and stablility to the spring. That is why Toyota uses a reverse shackle. Second, progressive leaf packs are not meant to live and operate in reverse arch. Up until the spring goes flat, the arch is smooth from eye to eye. After it passes flat it begins to get a wave in it with a hump developing over the axle. You can actually see a little of that shape developing in the pictures you posted. All of the progressive nature that we all strive to get goes out the window when that happens. The stress on the springs becomes very high and you could be headed for a broken spring. There are springs designed to operate in negative arch, but they are never built as progressive stacks. Generally they are mono springs or maybe 2 full length leaves. The older domestic trucks used this design in the front for many years.

If this is a Deaver designed and blessed suspension, It would sure be great if one of their engineers would join the discussion and explain how this is supposed to work. Maybe we are fucked in the head for questioning this, and if so, I'd like to learn a few things Again I'm not trying to give you crap, but I have been around suspension work a few times.

"Sorry but Jeff at Deaver is the one who designed them and saw the pics and said they are peffectly fine...My local off-road shop has also seen my springs and says the same thing"

Oxi,
I would suggest that you do some research on suspension setups, and stop thinking this Deaver guy and off-road shop guy are geniuses because they are obviously just tying to make a buck from you and feeding you bullsheet by saying your setup is perfectly normal.

Until you know Jeff at Deaver, stop rushing to judgement, your not God...

Deaver has been building springs for many years and has vast racing background, if his springs were bad, then why would he risk liability selling them to me?

Posted by: oxi | Apr 1, 2012 9:37:05 PM

@Irgrnr & Tom,

Ever heard of a STALKER?

You guys are online STALKERS, I mean come on going to the lengths to track individuals on forums around the web, you guys are creepy and strange...

Posted by: oxi | Apr 1, 2012 9:38:58 PM

@oxi - quote " you guys are creepy and strange...".
Ouch.........
Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote "Just stay in your perfect little world, let the people that use their trucks do as they please because you obviously do not know anything or much at all about pickups..."

If my "little world" was perfect, you wouldn't be in it.

I'm not talking about modifications to enhance offroading but modifications that claim to increase GVWR. You can't excede the door tag. (Unless an Engineer is willing to give you papers that say you can, or a manufacturer is willing to legally say their setup can increase your GVWR).
I had rented a 5 ton truck to help move my sister in law. Being a commercial truck, I had to stop at the wiegh scales. He weighed the truck, checked the licence and registation and also checked the door tag. The truck wasn't loaded heavy so I was okay there. He stated that the truck was licenced and insured to carry less weight than the truck's tags. He found that odd considering it was a rental truck.

In the logging industry in BC the greatest capacity for truck and trailer(s) is a GCWR of 139,700 lb on an 8 axle truck and trailer. A standard "18 wheeler" which is a truck with 5 axles is considerably less than that. I can't go out and put different springs on it to reach the GVW of an 8 axle rig. (IIRC that would be 30 tires on the road). Even if I had an 8 axle rig, I can't modify it to carry more. Same rules apply to pickups.

On the subject of modifying a pickup for offroading. All of the reputable manufaturers of offroad components sell components that meet all of the government regulations. They also sell parts and kits that do not meet government highway regulations. I haven't looked at that kind of stuff in a long time but I recall seeing prominent labels saying "for offroad use only", and "for closed course use only".
I've seen similar labels and tags for motorcycle components.
As far as modifying to meet legal road requirements, myself and many of my friends have gone the "backwards" route and modified dirt bikes to be street legal. Those laws are very interesting. Maybe you should try looking them up for your jurisdiction.

Go ask your technician Jeff to give you signed documents saying that Deaver and himself certify that your springs and modifications legally increase your GVWR and meet all federal and state laws.
I'm willing to bet that he will not do that because he can not.
I'd say your world is far from perfect.

Posted by: Lou | Apr 2, 2012 12:26:56 AM

@Oxi

I hope your springs bust threw you bedframe on your PoS Taco...

Posted by: Foxi | Apr 2, 2012 1:17:51 AM

PUTC forums were getting a bit boring without you Oxi, WELCOME BACK!!!

Posted by: toycrusher84 | Apr 2, 2012 6:56:13 AM

Welcome back, oxi.

Lou is a hater. ;)

Posted by: Dave | Apr 2, 2012 1:23:18 PM

@Dave - "hater"? I'm surprised Oxi left that one out. How about "Ignorant", "moron", and "gay". ROTFLMFAO

Posted by: Lou | Apr 2, 2012 3:09:09 PM

@Dave - this is my favorite quote used in reference to Oxi on the posted link:
Quote "sounds like someone needs to sell the truck and take that money an buy a life long bus ticket and a helmet".

Posted by: Lou | Apr 2, 2012 3:15:23 PM

I think oxi should get an opinion from someone that is not financially involved, that means not Jeff and not the off-road shop that was doing the work.

I will get contacting some experts and inviting them into the conversation.

As an aside your springs look very rusty after only 5 months in addition to being very flat with no arch. It doesn't look right. Is that normal? More than likely it is not right but you need to get an opinion from someone who you are not paying $$$ for services.